In the second coming of the second coming of Irreligiosophy, Matt and Chuck tackle CS Lewis, his life and times, some of his fiction and non-fiction, and finally his most well-known piece of apologetic, “Mere Christianity.” In the middle we get sidetracked discussing the misogyny of 1940s apologetics as compared and contrasted to the 21st century atheist-skeptical movement.
After everything is said and done, we really only get through the preface and Book One, but it still compares well to the supernatural but quite real standard I like to call the “Law of Podcast Nature.” It’s just like the law of gravity but better.
129 Responses to “2.2 Mere Christianity”
The anti-misogyny rant made me so FUCKING HAPPY, I’m a third genoration atheist, raised in an atheist family and it was a shock coming from my feminist parents home to find the atheist movement being SO filled with misogyny.
@ xxicenturyboy
I always thought that skit you mentioned was making fun of the idiocy of the guy in the elevator and how stupid it was that so many people made Watson’s comments into a big deal and freaked out.
Were you the “one true podcast” before imaginary friends show?
I think the criticism of Shermer is overplayed. Both PZ and Benson misrepresented what he said. He didn’t say women can’t do skepticism or critical thinking, he said they don’t want to speak publicly about it as much as guys do. I think that was a dumb thing to say too, because he didn’t have the evidence for it as he admits, but it’s not as bad as what he’s been charged with.
There are gender differences, but you better have the evidence to back up any claims you make about it. And there is a difference between biologically vs culturally originated differences. When you say “it’s a guy thing” you’re implying more the former, which has a worse connotation than the latter. His latest response on this topic does come around to the latter by saying “it is probably a legacy of the past socialization defining what women are expected to do.” While he’s speculating, he could have added that it could also be due to a preferentially pro-male environment.
I don’t personally have favorites in these battles. I like almost all the main skeptic celebs, but have disagreed with all of them at one time (I’m for PZ against Novella, Dawkins’s muslima thing was an embarrassment, Shermer can get too accommodationist for my tastes). I love and learn from them all still.
Except Sam Harris, can’t stand him.
Yes. Those rat bastards stole our tagline.
I’d also like to point out for anyone concerned about Matt — have some patience. Remember how terrible some of the early episodes were? Toward the end, Leighton and I both had over 100 episodes worth of podcasting experience. Right now, Matt has somewhere around 6 or 7.
Maybe. It starts with them calling Rebecca Watson a dude, which I guess could be making fun of…what exactly? Then Chuck talks with a lisp to imitate Rebecca because that was the most sophisticated satirical thing he could do, or maybe to drive home that it was really a gay man, because all gay men talk with lisps right? Then TOWMNBN (btw Prince was the artist formerly known as…) remarks on Chucbecca’s unibrow and glasses? Then Chucbecca pouts that s/he’s going to blog the shit out of this? I could give you that they are making fun of the man in the elevator, but I think they give Rebecca equal mocking time with some low ad hominem attacks thrown in. I know I know, it was just a joke, they were illuminating the ridiculousness of the situation with humor and parody, grow a thicker skin, blah blah blah. Regardless, I would distance myself from that shit also. I guess its just a guy thing.
You might note that I “distanced” myself from the skit a year and a half ago when it first aired and there was an entire comment thread and a separate forum topic about exactly that. As I said at the time, it was a learning moment for me. Truth be told, I was surprised the skit didn’t gin up more controversy. But I think by and large people understood what we were trying to do, even if we weren’t successful at doing it.
You might also want to try to figure out what an ad hominem fallacy actually is. I mean, if you’re going to use technical terms, you probably ought to understand their precise meaning.
Come on, Chuck does great voice impersonations. Did you hear his French one in this ep? That was uncanny, like he must have done a mission in France with Romney.
I’m tired of the whole feminism/elevatorgate debate since I consider myself a secular humanist which to me, covers equal rights for everyone (Humans anyway). I’ve heard terrible arguments on both sides of the whole ordeal, one that specifically comes to mind is Schrodinger’s rape. The person that wrote that needs PTSD counseling. Also in the beginning I think Rebecca was just trying to help awkward guys not be so creepy, but what it has become is steaming pile of shit.
In my limited life experience I don’t see where being an atheist means somebody is rational. I think Matt hit on it a little in this episode when he mentioned the path that lead him to atheism. Not everyone takes the slow rational path to atheism from what I have seen. Are we going to be like Christians and not call them “True” atheists?
I have been to some local skeptical group meetings and I can tell you that religion comes up almost every time. So I’m not sure why people would think skepticism doesn’t cover religion. I don’t know what the “BIG” meetings are like, but the local ones I have gone to seem to be more just about being around intelligent conversation and eating dinner.
I would assume that if you don’t like the policies at TAM or other conferences you can choose not to go. Or just start your own conference…
Oh and by the way all you Matt bashers can suck balls. He will get better with time and if you fuckers think you can do a better job then start your own podcast. Stryper RULZ!!!
Your right, you guys typically did ad feminam attacks.
*You’re
Not an ad feminam either. You seem to be really struggling with your fallacies. Might I recommend the Evidence 4 Faith podcast which has two episodes specifically devoted to fallacies.
So I just went back to listen to that elevator skit ep, and fast forwarded to find that part, and landed on the audio of Watson talking about it, and I swear at first I thought it was a guy talking. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
‘Not an ad feminam either. You seem to be really struggling with your fallacies. Might I recommend the Evidence 4 Faith podcast which has two episodes specifically devoted to fallacies.’
ad hominem ad hom’i·nem’ adv.
USAGE NOTE As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener’s emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans’ evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one’s opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn’t in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. • Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in “Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together” (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. • A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in “Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination” (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in “Their recourse … to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women’s leadership on campus”.
Are you sure that wasn’t an ad hominem attack? Using personal features to undermine an argument? Strictly speaking I suppose you are right. You guys were just being dicks. But that’s OK, we always knew you guys were dicks, that what was so funny, unless you had guests on of course, then you guys were always so nice to them, even if you had ripped them apart the episode before and after! Must be the Morman in you. Now what is that fallacy called where you can admit that… yes we attacked the woman’s personal features without knowing her, we also mocked her voice, we used her personal features to undermine not only her argument but insult women in general, but I can still school someone because by god it wasn’t an AD HOMINEM attack! Oh yeah, that’s the Douche Fallacy. Hey Chuck I am not arguing that you guys aren’t funny or informative, I love your podcast, but you guys were dicks, and you knew it. You used to embrace that philosophy, I would hate to see that go.
It seems like your neurons are trying to make the connection, but while your copy+paste dump made the distinction clear, you still don’t seem to get it. So I’ll help you out.
Ad hominem: “You are wrong, Miss Watson, because you are ugly.”
Not ad hominem: “Miss Watson, you are ugly.”
Are you seriously arguing that I was attempting to undermine Watson’s argument by attacking her personal appearance? What argument of Watson’s would that be? And apparently also I wasn’t just trying to undermine Watson’s yet-to-be-named argument, but I was insulting all women in general? How, exactly?
If you’d taken the time to read the links I put up instead of trolling the internet for a definition of “ad hominem” that you still don’t understand, you’d see that the “personal attacks” against Watson in the skit were an attempt to parody the comments I’d read around the internet, by placing them in the mouth of an obviously misogynistic character. If you then concentrated real hard and went on to argue that it was a failed parody because it was too close to the actual comments without making it more obvious that these comments were the butt of the joke rather than the joke itself, I’d agree with you. As it is, you’re just making yourself look like an idiot.
And just to make it clear, that last sentence wasn’t an ad hominem. I don’t think you’re wrong because you’re an idiot. I think you’re wrong, and you’re an idiot.
Are you seriously arguing that I was attempting to undermine Watson’s argument by attacking her personal appearance? What argument would that be? And apparently now I wasn’t just trying to undermine Watson’s unspecified argument, but now I’m insulting all women in general.
Well, like I said originally, this was one of the few skits that made me cringe because it was so bad, and really was only meant to emphasize, by giving a specific instance, how you both ran a podcast that seemed to revel in being sexist in virtually every episode. What I find laughable is now you are trying to distance yourself from that by saying that you were like The Colbert Report? The joke is we don’t really believe this, we are making fun of people who do? Come on Chuck, you’re not that talented. Embrace your inner misogynist Chuck, or one day it is going to build up, and you might sprain something. You were raised a Mormon man, you married a Mormon woman, misogyny is in your blood, its in your podcast. Not judging, not even criticizing, just saying. But like I said, who cares, its your show, do what you want because that was never my point. And yes, I am arguing that your skit used the term unibrow, her glasses and your use of a pouty lispy voice to undermine her argument. How else could you interpret that? You really can’t see how that could have undermined the point Rebecca was trying to make? Really? I have had several people (two men, two women) listen to your skit (small sample of shitty anecdotal evidence, I know) and they all agree that you, Chuck, are obviously mocking Rebecca. The whole point of her blog is equal treatment for women, don’t objectify them and specifically, her video post was don’t hit on women when they are in a strange country in a closed room in the middle of the night right after speaking specifically about things like that. Then it grew to draw in Dawkins, who marginalized her situation, then grew to encompass how misogynistic the whole skeptic/world can be, she was openly criticized for speaking up, etc. Perhaps, argument is the wrong word. Message perhaps, or point of view, reality probably. Well, you could be saying by mocking her voice, she shouldn’t be taken seriously because she is overreacting, much like Dawkins did, or by mocking her looks you’re objectifying her and insinuating she should be happy that even a guy like your elevator character comes on to her. I know, I know, you claim that was all a parody of comments made on her website, so you are the heroes, not the villains, and I don’t get the subtle humor and innuendo, and you had long thoughtful forum chats about it yada yada yada. All I really agree with is that it was a really poorly executed skit, (although hwmnbn was hilarious playing himself) and yes it did too closely parallel what the “real” misogynists were saying. Too close to tell the difference, like all of your old podcasts. Not criticizing, just saying. Had you actually had Rebecca sound normal (or actually be a woman), or heck, just emailed her and asked her on, she may have participated, it would have been more on target and funny. I have met her several times, and she is very funny and engaging, and may have been happy to lampoon her experience. Although the last time I saw her she never wants to talk about her elevator experience again. Have her on, I am pretty sure she is an atheist, she’s well known and a lot more funny than PZ Myers. I know you don’t respect skepticism as a movement, but she is the Skepchik and it could be interesting. And don’t tell me that the show changed because hwmnbn is no longer on it. You were the show, complicit in all aspects, and the show would still have hwmnbn on it if he hadn’t personally screwed you, not for any other reason. Embrace the misogyny, it is who you are, it is your destiny.
And I thought ptah was the harsh one.
FWIW, I personally don’t see misogyny from Chuck. He “gets it” on that issue. But I also think if he meant the skit as a parody of blog comments, it was very poorly delivered. I don’t think anyone could have understood that by the skit itself or the intro. So, it was a flub, but I allow a lot of leeway for attempts at humor. They missed the mark on that one, but he admits it, no big deal.
Shocking and offending and going over or near the line is a respectable part of humor. I mean, IRR 1 nor 2 has nothing on the Ardent Atheist podcast in their offense quotient, rape and nigger jokes in every episode, and AA just won a podcast award. No, not just because it’s misogynistic and racist.
Anyway. I think a lot of the disagreement here and the recent skeptic on skeptic web violence is more due to a misunderstanding. Better communication is needed and more leeway should be extended. The vitriol should be saved for the real scam artists and con men and fundies. Hate the common enemy!
Go easy on me, please. 🙂
>>>I added some underlining. I hope that helps.<<<
Thanks Chuck.. it is a help but it's backwards… everything BUT the link is underlined. Have another go! ;^)
A bit disappointed to hear Chuck fall for some of the misrepresentations PZ and others have made about thunderfoot and others.
No one has ever said there should be no sexual harassment policy at meetings. The thing is, there already is one and they want to have like a second one that’s shouted from the rooftops which falsely advertises the wrong idea that sexual harassment is more of a problem int he atheist community than anywhere else. There have been almost no incidents so this extra concern is unjustified.
I don’t think any significant minority of atheists actually thinks women shouldn’t be equal and that rape comments are okay. And Atheism+ sounds great in theory. In practice though many fall into the trap of demonizing all men and shutting down all criticism which is is ironic when coming from “free thought” blogs.
Shermer did not say skepticism and atheism are a guy thing, he said being outspoken about it is.
Look up the incident with Matt Dillahunty at the A+ forums, he was on their side and he made a smurf account to prove to everyone dissenting opinions are fine if they aren’t trollish, and he got banned and excoriated as a misogynist bigot troll etc., until he revealed who he was and suddenly they were all apologetic.
Hey, so glad to see the second coming has finally happened!
I am a Kiwi exmo, there is a stunning number of Mormons down here, proud to be descendents of Lehi (and ignoring all that DNA evidence tracing Polynesians back to Asia).
I would love to see an episode on Mormon urban legends. You could probably do a fair bit on the “Bigfoot is Cain” legend, given new life in modern times in Spencer W. Kimball’s “Miracle of Forgiveness”; and the activities of Mormon apologist/Bigfoot investigator Dr Jeffrey Meldrum. It doesn’t get more weird than that.
RE: what Chuck said about Matt at the top of the comments…
I love Matt as a co-host.
That is all.
Citation needed.
Prediction: since the kind of person who says someone is “demonizing all men” typically can’t distinguish such demonization from the cosmic microwave background, this claim will not pan out.
Wow, I looked and your characterization is completely misleading. He was not called a misogynist, a bigot, or a troll, and after he revealed himself people argued with him and called the thread he started stupid and pointless, just as they did before they knew who he was.
And you have the nerve to be disappointed at other people falling for “misrepresentations”?
Quite frankly it sounds like he just started nitpicking in the same ridiculous way a bunch of trolls also did, and then when he laid down his identity he acted like it was supposed to be some kind of trump card for the conversation. Kind of shitty if you ask me.
I’m glad I looked into it. Now I know how full of shit all the descriptions of Dillahunty’s little stunt as given by these True Skeptics™ are.
All of which is to say: fuck yeah, Deep Rifts. Chuck is 100% right on that. I don’t want to make camp with sexists.
Perelandra was kind of okay, though, actually. The devil character was pretty good, and there was a nice sense of wonder and mystery at times. It really turned to shit when Lewis entered the plot and started talking in ALL CAPS about how Mountain are inherently masculine, etc.. At that point, I couldn’t even read.
Now… where’s mah pawdcast?
PS: I love Matt as co-host. I look forward to Irreligiosophy 3.0, which will feature Matt as the moderator of a weekly round table wine tasting session.
“…about how mountains* are inherently masculine, etc..”
Proofreading, how does it work?
That’s just cruel, Chuck.
How very humanistic of you.
Deep Rifts all the way!
I’m sorry but you have totally misrepresented the positions of the people opposed to the Skepchicks, Free thought blogs, A+ group. The problems with Rebecca Watson started years before the elevator rubbish. She already had a reputation as an abusive drunk, abusing women that didn’t want to join her shitty club. They were chill girls, gender traitors & sister punishers according to Becky. Then there is the banning of Becky from the JREF forum http://greylining.com/2011/09/10/why-rebecca-watson-is-a-criminal/ http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Rebecca_Watson#Background and this is just the tip of the ice berg.
The problems people have with “Elevatorgate” is far for the simple narrative you spouted http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Attacks_on_Stef_McGraw http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Denialism:_Watson_call_For_Dawkins_Boycott_%22Never_Happened%22
When it comes to the sexual harassment policy TAM already had a sexual harassment policy. One written by legal professionals but Becky and friends lied and said it didn’t exist so they demanded that TAM organizers introduced their incoherent scribblings that they cobbled together in a day. That “sexual harassment policy” was later deleted & existence denied after they had too much shit hung on them. They also had a slander campaign against this poor bastard at the same time http://www.skepticalabyss.com/?p=31 http://www.facebook.com/notes/rob-tarzwell/tam-rebecca-watson-and-female-safety-two-anecdotes/10150932203392412?comment_id=22568130&offset=0&total_comments=193
None of the main opposition are against women’s rights we just don’t like their brand of feminism. Your “sins of the father fallacy” can go fuck itself I’m for equality for all & that means everyone.
Yes 4chan style trolls say extremely nasty things & they do it to get a reaction the majority of people that oppose Becky & friends behave that way.
I’ve been listening to your podcast for a few years now & I like you Chuck but that was the most ignorant rant I’ve heard in a long time check out other points of view http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/Witch_of_the_Week
http://greylining.com
Contact Al Stefanelli http://alstefanelli.wordpress.com
Holy feck!
This elevator-gate thing is like a forest fire. You think it’s died down, and the whole place suddenly erupts again in another firestorm.
Anyway, I never liked elevators (or lifts as they’re properly known). I always prefer to use the stairs. 🙂
Let’s see, here are the first few sentences from that link: “Rebecca first appeared in the online world in early 2004, as regular forum trash on the JREF forums. Although completely unremarkable in most aspects, Rebecca had one distinguishing characteristic: possession of a vagina.”
Yeah, you guys are perfectly reasonable.
The one thing I will agree with is that Watson should not have mentioned McGraw in her presentation for several reasons: 1) It was unprofessional — I’ve never been to a medical conference, for example, and had a presenter talk about an online argument they’ve gotten into; 2) It was off-topic, as her talk was about the attack on women’s rights from the religious right; 3) It was not a level playing field, in that McGraw could not adequately respond to Watson’s criticisms; and 4) It was an abuse of her power as a keynote presenter.
In summary:
That “Rebecca Watson is a criminal” article makes a really great case that its author is an obsessive, hate-filled crank. The “fascism” tag is a nice touch.
Searching around on the googles, I’ve found that “they call people chill girls, gender traitors and sister punishers” is sort of a generic accusation against the feminist set. Here’s how substantiated that is:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/05/how-to-make-baseless-accusations-become-true-via-repetition/
Geez, this elevator thing just won’t die… To be honest, I did not know anything about Rebecca Watson before elevatorgate… correction, I did not know anything about Rebecca Watson before the Chuck and Leighton parody of elevatorgate on Irreligiosophy, which quite honestly cracked me up. That’s when I looked the whole thing up and that was about a year after the fact.
When I did look it up, I have to admit I did not like Rebecca. OK, she did not like being hit on in an elevator, that’s fine. Humiliating the guy by talking about it on the internet… Was that necessary? But what got me was the comment “I don’t like to be sexualized like that”!?! WTF?… She doesn’t want men to have sexual thoughts about her? I want women to have sexual thoughts about me!!! The more, the better!!!
So, I do get where a lot of the hatred is coming from. I prefer women who say that women are superior to men because, quite honestly, they have some pretty solid arguments. But women who seem to want to desexualize everything scare me. The image of a sexless androgynous society is really quite disgusting. I would prefer to live in a world of leather-clad dominatrixes whipping me all day than that.
Well, I hope that put an end to all this elevator nonsense! Chuck, get Leighton back on and do some more penis jokes…
Amen
27-year-old Megan Phelps-Roper and her 19-year old sister Grace have left the looney bin known as the Westboro Baptist Church. I know you have interviewed several of the Phelps family members in the past. Is there anyway you could get in touch with Megan and have her on your podcast?
If you think that discussions tangentially connected to Elevatorgate are bad, go look at the original “guys, don’t do that” video. The recent comments there are mere days or even hours old, and almost all of them are hammering Watson. It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen.
Sigh. Spoken like a true dudebro, Horatio. Since you don’t seem to have grasped what Watson meant at all, here’s a bit more on what she meant by “sexualization”:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/faq-what-is-sexual-objectification/
What Watson meant is that the fellow was sexualizing her by treating her like she was down to fuck after she’d just announced that she was off to bed and after publicly talking about sexism as a problem.
Why must this horse be still alive to beat? And where’s mah pawdcast?
Err… Sorry for flaming up this issue Chuck. My bad… Very unintentional and XX decided to go full out to a minor disagreement on opinion of humor…
Sorry. Actually, not really sorry. That podcast was funny in most respects. The unibrow shit was dumb, but other than that the point rang clear. It was making fun of every bit about the incident and how it never should have been a blog item. I got that at least, but I have a background in comedy, so that comes easy to me.
Some people have a hard time with satire.
I have to admit that this is a confusing issue to me. Although some things are pretty obvious (although women have legal equality today, our culture still tends to see women as sexual objects first and only later as individual people), there are a couple of things that prevent me from making a final judgement on Feminism in our modern society:
1. What if, to some degree, we just can’t help objectifying the gender to which we’re attracted to? Of course treating people differently in a social sphere is absurd, but what if our brains are so hardwired to mate that we can’t help but sexualize others? Maybe there’s a component of that which we’ll never be able to eliminate, but if that’s the case, how do we recognize where we draw the line and say “sorry, this is just how I evolved to think”?
2.Sure, there’s no reason why any convention or social gathering shouldn’t have harassment policies, but doesn’t that depend on the validity of the policies? Isn’t it possible that it could reach a point where normal interactions between attendees are discouraged and it’s no more fun? To me, doing anything without anyone’s consent is where the line needs to be drawn, but I’ve read some stuff online about how you shouldn’t be allowed to think this or that, which seems a lot like thought police (although I don’t remember who, so I’m not pointing to anyone in particular and I understand that an ignorant person that calls itself “Feminist” doesn’t change the validity of the position itself).
Sorry if this is too long or it seems like it comes from a position of ignorance, but those are points which I can’t seem to reach some clearance on my own and any help would be appreciated.
No, I still don’t get it, Moewicus. I get sexual objectification but some people don’t seem to be able to distinguish between sexual desire and sexual objectification. In fact, to some people, I think those two things are one and same.
What Watson meant is that the fellow was sexualizing her by treating her like she was down to fuck after she’d just announced that she was off to bed and after publicly talking about sexism as a problem.
How do you know that? How does Watson even know that? Maybe this elevator guy was truly attracted to the whole Rebecca Watson package. Maybe, as she was walking away, he thought to himself “I may never see this fabulous women again”. So he screws up his courage, follows her to the elevator and invites her to his room for some coffee. Maybe sex wasn’t even on his mind. He just wanted to establish some kind of contact with that precious Rebecca Watson.
But there is the possibility that he had sex on his mind which of course makes him a dirty sexist pig guilty of sexualizing poor Rebecca AFTER she had talked about sexism and AFTER she announced she was off to bed. My gawd, the horror.
Perhaps people like you and Rebecca would be happier if we all just wore burkas. Men, women, children, dogs, cats… That way we could really cut down on these evil, dirty sexual impulses that are so degrading to women.
Thank you for calling out the misogynist bullies in the atheist movement. As a female nerd and atheist I have been thoroughly disappointed by the stubborn irrationality of these little boys who won’t grow the fuck up. And there’s so many of them. WTF?! Thank you for being an adult.
Err… Sorry for flaming up this issue Chuck. My bad… Very unintentional and XX decided to go full out to a minor disagreement on opinion of humor…
Eh. I’m all for engaging in rational discussion, or if it goes beyond rational discussion I’m all for mocking. When the other guy tries to exhibit mind-reading skills or claims knowledge of an alternate reality where Leighton and I never had a falling out, I don’t really see a need to mock any more. At that point he’s pretty much mocking himself.
Oh, lordy. Nothing in what I said was about what was on his mind, nor is what he was thinking relevant. Objectification isn’t non-objectification if you secretly respect the person you’re objectifying. It’s about how he acted and what he communicated. Look at the APA’s definition of sexualization and let me know where you find “a psychic must be on hand to confirm that sexualization has taken place”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexualization#American_Psychological_Association_view
So we don’t know what was on that guy’s mind, but you DO know a bunch of things other people are thinking but don’t say.
Well, this is information, at least. Your psychic powers don’t allow you to read thoughts in the past.
One would think that after two years of this shit we’d start to see something new, but the backlash is so often just this same old strawman of “feminists think sex is evil and want to eliminate it from the world.” Honestly, how did your head not explode from sheer banality as you typed that crap out?
Oh, lordy. Nothing in what I said was about what was on his mind, nor is what he was thinking relevant.
Are you serious? Do you spew so much crap that you can’t keep track of it anymore? Let me help you out, this is what you said… Your exact words:
the fellow was sexualizing her by treating her like she was down to fuck
He asked her if she wanted to have some coffee. Who’s the mind reader here, buddy? You read a hell of a lot into an invitation for coffee.
One would think that after two years of this shit we’d start to see something new, but the backlash is so often just this same old strawman of “feminists think sex is evil and want to eliminate it from the world.” Honestly, how did your head not explode from sheer banality as you typed that crap out?
Like I said, I haven’t been following this saga, at all. I only know about it because of Irreligiosophy. So, you’ll excuse me if my point has already been made by others. Maybe a lot of people are making this point because it’s a valid one. You obviously have been following this thing for two years yet you can’t seem to come up with any kind of coherent argument about it. You seem to think that sounding pompous is enough.
Not every complaint is valid. Maybe people like you and Rebecca are a little too obsessed by this issue and so you begin to see sexual repression everywhere, even in an invitation for coffee.
http://morewomeninskepticism.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/49-let-splinter-groups-splinter/#more-759
I am a woman on shift rotas who has had to come home alone very late at night and have travelled abroad plenty of times. I have had to limit my own movements and be extra vigilant for attacks in ways most men have never had to think about. Getting accosted in closed spaces is a very stressful scenario for any woman and whatever the intentions of Elevator Guy he made Ms Watson as uncomfortable as he would make any woman, including myself, in her position.
I would expect men to be grateful for the advice on how *not* to approach a woman they are interested in.
Not every complaint is valid. Maybe people like you and Rebecca are a little too obsessed by this issue and so you begin to see sexual repression everywhere, even in an invitation for coffee.
In this instance it can be very difficult for a man to place himself in the shoes of the woman. This is actually evidenced by your previous comment:
But what got me was the comment “I don’t like to be sexualized like that”!?! WTF?… She doesn’t want men to have sexual thoughts about her? I want women to have sexual thoughts about me!!! The more, the better!!!
I imagine you’re not the only man to want that. I also imagine that desire is pretty rare for women. Having privilege means that you cannot simply place yourself in the female’s shoes and expect everything else to remain the same. Everything else is most certainly not the same. How often have you crossed a street to avoid a potential rapist? How often have you scanned the room for potential exits, just in case? Had a coworker stay late to walk you out to your car at nighttime? Carried mace or pepper spray in your wallet or on your keychain?
The best analogy I’ve heard on privilege is to imagine a polar bear next to a thermostat. He’s comfortable at temperatures near freezing and wonders why a cat keeps trying to turn up the temperature and make him uncomfortable. It’s not his fault he was born with a thick coat and lots of blubber for insulation and he’s likely unaware that he’s making others uncomfortable by insisting on a low temperature. The question he asks himself is, “If I was in that cat’s shoes, I wouldn’t want to be hot and sweaty either!” instead of, “How can I best make both of us as comfortable as possible?” because he was born with a thick coat and good insulation and has lived his entire life with it.
Having privilege doesn’t make a person evil — and this is where a lot of men get hung up or defensive — but it can blind a person to the uncomfortable reality that someone who does not have privilege faces on a daily basis.
Won’t the polar bear just eat the cat?
Well, this is the cat in question, so …
To be fair, that’s not his best side.
I’m starting to see why this elevator things has been going on for two years. I’ve officially been sucked into it, too. In my defense I blame the condescending tone of a certain Moewicus.
Of course, women have perfectly legitimate concerns that I, as a man, will probably never truly understand. I’m not arguing with that. But is it possible to take a perfectly legitimate concern and to push it to such extremes that it becomes ridiculous? I think to a lot of people turning an invitation for coffee into some kind of sexual violation or sexual objectification or whatever is a little bit ridiculous.
So being critical of Rebecca Watson does not equal being flippant about rape. There is a lot of gray area there. Anyways, I’m officially taking myself out of this debate. I will no longer be posting anything on this toxic topic.
I was dreading yet another thread on this, but it looks like Chuck handled it pretty awesome. In defense of my condescending tone, I totally blame Horatio reflexively strawmanning Watson as well as the countless slymepitters and youtube neckbeards continuing the noble struggle against feminism to this very day.
Also, I would totally eat that cat.
This, I blame on Chuck.
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3sxs9e/
I hope this gives you pause.
Where did you find my cat? The polar bear is hungry . Oh well I’ll just feed him Tia children.
Don’t go anywhere, Horatio! You’re the only one who thought the ElevatorGate skit was funny.
This, I blame on Chuck.
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3sxs9e/
I hope this gives you pause.
*paws
Don’t go anywhere, Horatio! You’re the only one who thought the ElevatorGate skit was funny.
I have a hard time believing that Chuck. You mean you didn’t find it funny as you were participating in it? Did Leighton put a gun to your head?
The skit ridiculed a situation that was clearly ridiculous. Some of it was in bad taste but that was typical of the humor on Irreligiosophy.
Some reactions at the time:
Herb
This podcast was good stuff. Chuck, love the elevator girl voice. So sexy. (Phone sex? Give me a call.)
Karyn
Re: elevatorgate sketch. It was highly offensive. I loved it. I’ve given up trying to have a position on that one.
Even Moewicus did not seem too offended:
The show actually gets pretty damn good when you guys get down to brass tacks sooner rather than later and both of you sound like you know what you’re talking about.
Here’s hoping “would you like to see my etchings” as a veiled proposition is replaced by “I’ve got an electron microscope in my room”.
It was funny, Chuck. What happened to the Chuck who famously said to a Mims Carter bitching about hetero-sexism and skunk dicks:
If you’re gonna be so easily offended,
1, Don’t listen to the podcast.
2, Don’t go on the internet. Don’t step out into public. Don’t talk to anybody.
3, If you’re going to be so easily offend by people you don’t even know, buy a fainting couch for when you get the fucking vapors so you’ll have something soft to fall on when you faint.
Damn, this elevator thing keeps sucking me back… OK, I’m really done this time.
I have a hard time believing that Chuck. You mean you didn’t find it funny as you were participating in it? Did Leighton put a gun to your head?
Wow, you took me seriously. I mean, er, yes. Leighton did put a gun to my head. The whole idea was Leighton’s, and I only participated under threat of being teabagged.
Of course I thought it was funny. I listened to it the other day and still think it’s funny. But I don’t count, because I always think I’m funny. I’m that guy who goes around liking his own Facebook posts.